Talk:Go, the rules of
From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
- A few people thought that the mathy description wasn't appropriate for the main Go article. In addition I think the article is long enough (and it will grow when I have time to fill out the points that don't have text at the moment) to warrant it's own article. Someone who just wants to see what Go is about doesn't need to understand the nuances of the different rule sets. Christian Kleineidam 03:50, 3 February 2008 (CST)
- I like the attempt to give a mathy description of go, and the analysis of a the 1 point and 2 point boards was okay. But the intro led me to believe I'd see a comparison of the variety of rules systems in use.
- The use of the term "group" here doesn't correspond to what I understand to be normal English-language go usage, where it means a number of stones near each other, whether connected or not. If they're connected they're called a chain. Peter Jackson 10:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- This article contains interesting information, but I am not happy with it. It is not really suitable as a (detailed) explanation of the rules for those who want to learn them -- the differences are much too marginal even for advanced players. The main rules should be clearly separated from tournament rules (e.g., byo-yomi). The (mathematical) theory of the game and the different counting methods would deserve their own page(s). --Peter Schmitt 18:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)